Claim of Marino v. Hawkins Auto Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Marino v. Hawkins Auto Sales, Inc.

17 A.D.2d 895, 233 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7336

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 31, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 895 (Claim of Marino v. Hawkins Auto Sales, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Marino v. Hawkins Auto Sales, Inc., 17 A.D.2d 895, 233 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant, a garage mechanic, was injured when a tire he was inflating blew out causing the rim to strike him on the right side of the head. Appellants conceded the occurrence of the accident and that the accident resulted in a 32% loss of hearing in claimant’s right ear. Appellants urge, however, that there is no substantial evidence to support the board’s finding of a 24% binaural loss of hearing. We agree. The report of Dr. Saunders which is the sole evidence in the record attempting to relate the accident to claimant’s left ear defect does not meet the test established in Matter of Miller v. National Cabinet Co. (8 N Y 2d 277). Dr. Saunders’ report states specifically that the question of causal relation here involved cannot be “ answered affirmatively or negatively.” While actual proof is not required to uphold the validity of medical opinion, it is necessary that an opinion be given based upon some degree of medical certainty (Matter of Miller v. National Cabinet Co., supra, p. 284). Decision and award reversed and ease remitted to Workmen’s Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant, a garage mechanic, was injured when a tire he was inflating blew out causing the rim to strike him on the right side of the head. Appellants conceded the occurrence of the accident and that the accident resulted in a 32% loss of hearing in claimant’s right ear. Appellants urge, however, that there is no substantial evidence to support the board’s finding of a 24% binaural loss of hearing. We agree. The report of Dr. Saunders which is the sole evidence in the record attempting to relate the accident to claimant’s left ear defect does not meet the test established in Matter of Miller v. National Cabinet Co. (8 N Y 2d 277). Dr. Saunders’ report states specifically that the question of causal relation here involved cannot be “ answered affirmatively or negatively.” While actual proof is not required to uphold the validity of medical opinion, it is necessary that an opinion be given based upon some degree of medical certainty (Matter of Miller v. National Cabinet Co., supra, p. 284). Decision and award reversed and ease remitted to Workmen’s Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 895, 233 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-marino-v-hawkins-auto-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1962.